About Rationally Speaking

Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Ralph, just go away

Here we go again, Ralph Nader is running for President. I have written in the past about this uncommon figure of American politics and social activism, for whom I have the utmost respect. I have also said that I’ve changed my mind, in part, about his role in the infamous 2000 elections: while without him Gore would have won by a good margin, the Democrat in fact won anyway and was denied the Presidency only by a conservative Supreme Court who handed the election to George W. on terrifyingly shaky legal grounds. Moreover, when Nader said, before that election, that there was no discernible difference between the two candidates, he surely was being hyperbolic, but few people could have predicted at that point what an unqualified disaster Bush would turn out to be for the country and the rest of the world.

Nader did run again in ’04, though he did not have a significant causal role in the defeat of Kerry: the Dems simply chose the most inept candidate they had available, and this time George W. won almost square and fair (almost because there are still issues about significant voting “irregularities” in the pivotal state of Ohio, but that’s another story).

Nader, of course, is right in the substance of the comments he made last Sunday, when he announced his candidacy. Of Hillary Clinton he said that she is “the Democrat most loved by big business,” and chastised Obama for not speaking out about “the economic crimes against minorities in city ghettos.”

The two Democratic candidates’ responses weren’t that convincing. Clinton said that Nader -- who ran for the Green Party -- “prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we could have had.” As I said, this is a very partial truth, the major fault for that unfortunate outcome must be laid at the feet of a passive Democratic party and of activist judges on the Supreme Court. Obama’s comments were not that different from Clinton’s (just as much in their platforms is not that diffeent), saying that “[Nader] thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, and, eight years later, I think people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about.” Again, partially true, but I doubt one can find many Democrats who would have guessed back in 2000 just how wrong Ralph was on that count.

Nonetheless, Ralph, it’s time to go away. You are 74, for one thing, which means that even McCain is statistically more likely to make it alive to the end of the first term. Moreover, this is the fifth time you've given it a try; I admire the persistence and your love of a good fight for a good cause, but knowing where to draw the line is a sign of wisdom, which apparently you lack.

The main reasons you shouldn’t run, Ralph, include that this time the Democrats do have good solid candidates -- if nowhere near the kind of person both you and I would like to see running the country. More importantly, the United States and the planet simply cannot afford yet another war-mongering, anti-environmental President, who would keep increasing the gap between rich and poor and make life for everyone on earth a bit more miserable than it already is, and a hell of a lot more miserable than it could be.

Yes, of course you have the right to run, as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg keeps reminding us. It is a free country, especially if you have Bloomberg’s money. But you also have the moral duty to look at reality in its face: you don’t stand a chance to win, and unfortunate as that fact may be, it comes with a corollary: you’d be doing a big favor to our worst enemies, all those who fight so hard to stop the force of liberal progress. So, Ralph, just don’t.

29 comments:

Agreed, it's way too late for Nader to throw his hat into the ring. If he wanted anyone to take him seriously, he should have been making this announcement a year ago. I'm not too worried about it this time around. While he may have actually "stolen" some votes in 2000, I don't think he'll make even a tiny dent this time. You only get so many chances to be taken seriously as a candidate and Nader has basically worn out his welcome. Except for a few hard-core Nadarites, my guess is nobody pays any attention to him.

Disagreed. Come on Massimo and people, don't be such sheeple! So compliant to be herded into where elites of both parties want you to be led.

I fully support Nader running. I may not vote for, or actively support him. But I support him running, and advancing his message.

First, everyone knows that Nader isn't, nor ever was a "viable" candidate. And Nader knows this as well. But that is exactly one of Nader's valid points, that the electoral system is rigged to stay in the boundaries set by the major parties, funded by corporate interests, and policed by corporate media.

The two Democratic frontrunners came to be so not based on the merits of their plans and arguments, but on a whole host of other factors.

Second, although I am willing to vote for either Clinton or Obama, there is still lots of issues that need to be raised to pressure them and the Democratic party on.

Look how cowardly the Democratic congress has been on ending the Iraq occupation/war?

I also fear that whatever healthcare reform is put into place will be a subsidy for private for profit health insurance companies, instead what it should be. A non-profit insurance program.

And there are a whole host of other issues that need to be put on the table, and that Nader is an excellent spokesman for.

With that said, I will only vote for Nader or another third-party candidate if it is clear that the Democratic party candidate will handly defeat McCain. Purely a protest vote, but a neccessary protest regardless.

I am afraid I disagree also for reasons that include those listed by Sheldon in an earlier comment. The reason why the right leans right during primaries is that the base will not let them get away with it. On the other hand, Democrats run center at all times, and the response from the base is always "pragmatic" calls accept them as the lesser evil.

Massimo has written rather optimistically that this time around we have two good candidates. I am afraid I do not share his optimism. One of them is Hillary Clinton, a Goldwater girl funded by Murdoch, among others. The other, Obama, should be the better target of Massimo's [endorsement of] disparaging of pomo. Never before has such Audacity of Hype influenced so many, and raised legitimate worries for the future of the nation.

I don't think the limited choices coming out of the primaries, especially the Republican ones, are simply a reflection of the power of their base. The Christian right is actually a minority even within the Republican party, but it gets its disproportionate power from the very structure of the primaries, which is one of the most undemocratic systems on the planet -- despite the fact that most Americans keep thinking of their country as "the best democracy in the world."

This year we are seeing much less influence of the extreme right, and even some leverage from the left in the case of the Dems, because for the first time we got something pretty close to a national primary ("super-Tuesday"), which finally begins (but it certainly not sufficient!) to put the influence of small rural states like Iowa and New Hampshire in the proper perspective.

"...but it gets its disproportionate power from the very structure of the primaries, which is one of the most undemocratic systems on the planet"

In spite of what you may feel about not getting your way in terms of the current political scene, I truly believe that the citizenry for the most part does vote their will or conscience in the USA. It is safe to say that if there was actually trickery going on there would be a much greater margin or % of error between the two main party's. Like 30-40% cons. and 60-70 % lib. Or visa versa. But that is not the way it generally shapes up. Presently, the two so-called leading candidates of opposing parties are largely funded by the same individual. Soros. And that does not seem to bother anyone. But you know, it really ought to.

The intentional homogenization of the two parties is obviously what causes the extremly close elections, in case anyone did not figure that out yet. But hey, if it makes more sense to you to pin that particular problem on the cons. party, then there really isn't going to be either evidence rational or sensible enough to reverse the irrelevant and pointless polarization of the two parties who are just basically almost the same party anyway.

How ridiculous can we possibly be?

also..Accusation and and innuendo is such an old hat technique, M, one would think at this point that such brainy and "progressive" political interest groups could come up with something that actually is based on evidence and common sense.

In addition to Nader dropping out I hope Clinton goes soon too. Let's keep our fingers crossed that she doesn't drag the whole party down in an effort to gain more power. Obama and McCain offer a clear choice, and as long as Nader or Clinton don't mess it up, it will be a true mandate on the future of the nation. In fact, if Clinton were to win, it will be just more of the same BS, as seen here: http://www.disillusionedwords.com/?p=49

Well, if one is far enough on the left, everything else looks to be on your right. Saying Obama is "Manchurian Candidate, Right Winger, Empty Demagogue" is simply name calling. It seems like a short cut to thinking. So I can't really take that paper too seriously off the bat. If I did, I would have to consider reading Ann Coulter's books too.

What you say about Nader and Huckabee is true, perhaps. But to me it is not simply about having opposites. Obama and McCain both actually stand for something. McCain, for instance, has never wavered on his stance on Iraq, regardless of the polls. And Obama has not wavered yet either that I have seen. And I have never heard that Obama wants to privatize SS. I wish he did! A portion should be privatized in my opinion. But I don't need polar opposites. I don't need Obama to say "yes" just because McCain said "no."

Calling BHO a a right winger is like calling Bush a liberal because he increases spending on Africa. I'm not asking for a choice between Stalin and Hitler (obvious extremes). I am asking for a choice in directions, and there are more directions than just "away from the other."

If you are interested in keeping up in the Obama/McCain debate, just come on over to my blog. I just started it, but I plan on keeping it up until the election. You are more than welcome to post there and link up any arguments that BHO is actually a a right winger. http://www.disillusionedwords.com/?cat=62

"You are more than welcome to post there and link up any arguments that BHO is actually a a right winger."

jefferey,I don't think that. But nice of you to extend the invitation. Just noted the headline in a local paper that I picked up and read a bit at the haagen dazs in old town Santa fe. And it surprised me too. I am more or less use to being around VERY left thinking people but DID think that even those comments were quite extraordinary.

Am thinking also that the left believes that they like BHO because they perceive he will be a mold-able sort of guy. iow, We say "jump" you say, "how far". Barak does say a lot of very profound and mature sounding lines. But even before the charges of plagiarism I was rather sure that they were not his own. (or his own convictions)

Far too many voters are getting very much to that point in their expectations or understanding of politics that they are just looking for a message that pleases their senses (not sensibilities), all the while they have no idea where such superficial assessments eventually will take them.

"Far too many voters are getting very much to that point in their expectations or understanding of politics that they are just looking for a message that pleases their senses (not sensibilities), all the while they have no idea where such superficial assessments eventually will take them."

Yeah, that seems to be the main criticism of him. I really haven't formed a strong opinion about him at all. I am just glad it seems to be a McCain/Obama race. McCain does have the experience, but Obama has the passion and idealism that may well be necessary at this time in history. Of course, if Obama were elected and a terrorist attack happened, the right would be all over him if did not have a knee-jerk reaction. The problem is less with the politicians and more with the human race!

As far as his reading someone else's lines, no big deal. So has every president. Reagan's "thousand points of light" was not his own. And Bush's "axis of evil" was not his either. Even outside politics it happens. Bob Dylan uses other people's line all the time. So did T.S. Eliot. That why "great poets steal, bad poets plagiarize."

BTW, how is Santa Fe? I hear GREAT things about it and my wife and I want to take a trip out there sometime soon. I hear there is a great art scene.

While I certainly would not characterize Obama as a "right-winger", Paul Krugman has criticized Obama for falling into rhetorical acceptance of a "social security crisis". The opposing point being that social security can be fixed without privitization.

While I accept the argument to vote for Obama (or less likely Clinton) so as to defeat McCain, I disagree with this rhetoric that is basically arguing that we limit the debate to a narrower spectrum of issues. This exactly what calls for Nader to drop out amounts to.

That's a fair point. I just hope he doesn't do what he did last time, which was to through off the election results, but without actually get the issues debated. It would be one thing if he was in the debates with the candidates, like Perot. But either way, it's certainly within his rights to run, and I think it is good to have these issues debated.

As far as SS, what is the way to save it without privatization? Higher taxes or age benefits cuts? Those are the main options argued for so far. But if you have another idea on it, I would love to read more on the issue.

jeff "BTW, how is Santa Fe? I hear GREAT things about it and my wife and I want to take a trip out there sometime soon. I hear there is a great art scene."

It's an okay (spiritually and culturally complex) place to visit but I would absolutely not want to live there.

On the surface it appears to be peaceful, but in truth there are so many restless and self-interested folk who live there anymore. And if that is the true face of progressivism, I am not sure we ought to be very enthused about it.

"..And Bush's "axis of evil" was not his either. Even outside politics it happens. Bob Dylan uses other people's line all the time. So did T.S. Eliot."

Politicians and their speech writers are a very different sort of arrangement. The speech writer is employed to be able convey the intent and goals of the person that they write for. That is not like if I, for instance , heard Massimo or you say something rather witty or brilliant and then I repeated it pretty much word for word in a public forum with no credit whatsoever to the original source.

Now if you are willing to settle for a politician who will do things like that, I really don't know what to tell you. I know I definitely would not.

And BY THE WAY, have a relative who is in the PD in your neighborhood. Is it Orchard park or Buffalo? Use to spend some time in playing in the creek in OP when I was a kid. Spearing frogs with my nephews, (odd as it sounds, we are the same age), getting in to HUGE trouble with the Audubon society lady in the neighborhood. Etc.

It is soooo much prettier there, for the life of me why would you want to go to Santa Fe? :)cal

Cal, I have just heard nice things about Santa Fe. We actually would like to move out to San Fransisco. And though I grew up near Buffalo, I now live closer to Philadelphia.

As for Obama's plagiarism, it doesn't really concern me. In fact, even if they don't present a single original idea, I don't care. I just want good policies in place. If someone else writes them all, it doesn't bother me.

Sheldon, I would be happy to include a Nader section in my blog debates of McCain and Obama. Honestly, I have no problem with him. And his running is not that big a deal. I just want Clinton to get out of the way, as she could effect the election.

As to SS, raising taxes is one means. But the population will continue to grow and the social security tax will grow with it, especially as life expectancy increases. I just would like to have some of my money back each year to invest on my own. After all, the government has not shown itself to be too efficient or competent in other areas. That is part of the reason I support the availability of basic health care, but oppose mandated health care that does not allow private insurance (such as Canada's system). Our government run educational system here is terrible, but our private schools are top notch. That doesn't tell me that we should have the government takes over more! Also, I have no interest in the government taking half my pay check before I can even look at the numbers. Now, the answer may be raising the taxes for the rich and not the poor. That's fine as long is doesn't have the trickle down effect it usually has, like higher prices for us and higher unemployment so they can afford more private jets and European vacations. And don't forget that Germany and France just had their liberal governments replaced with conservative governments. And the conservatives are running as reformists!

"On the surface it appears to be peaceful, but in truth there are so many restless and self-interested folk who live there anymore. And if that is the true face of progressivism, I am not sure we ought to be very enthused about it."

Isn't that the story of the '60s and the soviet union and all sorts of "progressives". I always thought that Utopia was a great novel that should be immediately followed up by Animal Farm.

For anybody who foolishly thinks that the two parties are the same, let me mention just 4 names.

Hm... I must have expressed myself badly in this barbarian language again, because you did not get my point. :O)

Where did I say the TWO parties (you call that democracy?) were the same? I said there was right and far right -- two different things, no? Since coming to the US I got more aware/informed of the differences between them, but it's still a stretch to say the US mainstream (the top players at the TWO parties) have anything that could seriously be called left. So as usual, the US has their own meaning to some old word. Left here is basically right, maybe center at the best; an European social democracy-like type of thing, if they are feeling specially commie. Like what was done here with the word "libertarian": everywhere else it is basically a synonym for anarchist, while here it because some sort of super-radical capitalist, something like a Republican's wet dream: almost no government and total freedom to corporations to do what they want. But as usual I digress.

Now, back to my original point. There's the right and the far right, and nice guys like Nader want to go against the two party dictatorshit (bad taste spelling on purpose). Sure, very idealistic and admirable. But in such a highly conservative country it is pearls to pigs, mostly. And then the far right (Republicans, Alito) wins, while the less nefarious right (Democrats), which will be much better for you, loses power -- or goes farther right to keep in the game. That's the reason of my final question in the previous post: wanna live under the far right forever? I didn't think so, in which case you would probably do more good voting for the lesser evil (I know, that's horrible, but life is tough) than to the Naders of life.

Should have been "here it BECAME some sort". That's what I get for not re-reading before hitting the button...

By the way, my dream system would be anarcho-socialism. But not being TOO stupid (os so I fancy), I'm aware that such a thing would never work among glorified naked monkeys such as the human species, probably EVER, so I just go with whatever less bad is out there in practice...

so... how is it that you define "anarchy"? It seems from the tenor of your post that you define it similarly to the way the protesters at the Seattle debacle did. Still for the life of me I can't figure out how one can be for tariffs and laws against corporations and be an anarchist, which is defined (at least commonly defined) as the absence of government. Without a government who will impose the taxes to run your socialist system? Also, I am curious what country you came to the US from. And why? If the US is so awful and so "far right" then how come you decided to move to it? It strikes me that you are perhaps far left and thus you see anything right of you as being on the right. From a European stand point perhaps the Dems running this year are centrists, but if you haven't noticed that is the only chance they have of actually winning. You don't go from 0 to 60 without first passing 15 and 30. You need to understand that many in the US are fine with US policy. Perhaps that is not a correct or "moral" position, but they look at things like the economy here versus the economies in Europe and they fear that that could happen if things changed here. They fear that we could end up with high unemployment and a slow economy. Of course we have a drastically slower economy now, but compare the last ten years between the US and major European countries and you will see that the US still has the economic upper hand. Now you can always point to the weaker US dollar and the current slump, but look at it in a broader context. Look at the GDP difference, etc. People want the strong economy. That may well be a misplaced desire. It may well be that Americans lives are bankrupt in more than one way, but you aren't going to convince people of that by insulting them. In the end, I think question of which system is the best is not at all settled. The socialist countries do not have it all "figured out". Again, the conservatives were elected to office in Germany, France, and Canada recently because the people in those countries wanted change.

I for one do not think that the US is the best or the worst. I think that the US system needs to adopt some European and Canadian programs, such as health care, but made for Americans. We don't need a mandatory health system that imposes a uniformity on all. A system like that has major drawbacks, as with what happens in Canada when some has a big problem like a brain tumor... many come to the US and pay out of pocket because the waiting line is too long. Perhaps those are the exceptions propagated by the "corporate media" and their evil partners in congress. Perhaps the best system of government is a socialist one, or a communist one. And the best media is state media. But I don't believe those claims to be true.

One thing you need to understand, J, is that many people in the US look at the fact that we have the strongest economy, the strong military, and the greatest cultural exports, and they see that as proof that the US is doing just fine. I disagree. I think the fact that we are low on the list for education and health care is a scandal, but I don't think the way to fix that is go in the opposite extreme.

Jeff "As for Obama's plagiarism, it doesn't really concern me. In fact, even if they don't present a single original idea, I don't care. I just want good policies in place. If someone else writes them all, it doesn't bother me."

It should, because if BHO does not KNOW HIS OWN MIND anyone or any special interest group can hijack him and start making him do their bidding. And why would it be assumed that it would be someone you happen to think has good policies?

Can't quite tell if he would be as weak as Jimmy Carter, but he could be. And watching "History rocks" (oh my goodness, LOL!) on the history channel last night reminded me what a huge catastrophe the end of Carter's admin was. When Reagan stepped forward, the hostages being held in Iran were released within 30 minutes of his inauguration at his demand because the Iranian leader perceived Ronald as a "real man." One who would deal with Iran without fear. I did not remember how that went because I was between elementary and HS then. Was glad to have my memory refreshed tho because that was such a dramatic change in leadership and no one should ever forget that OR TAKE IT FOR GRANTED.

"Cal, I have just heard nice things about Santa Fe. We actually would like to move out to San Fransisco. And though I grew up near Buffalo, I now live closer to Philadelphia."

Well, yeah, Santa fe is a real interesting place to go, but so are the Mayan temples in S America (Guatemala).

What nice things did you hear?

Quite a few people in SF love their animals more than their children? Everyone who builds a home has to include in the cost of building two commercial low water use restrooms for someone else in the community? That's about 24k. You have no concept, I think, of the level of confusing bureaucracy there is in Santa Fe. But that's okay.

"Well, yeah, Santa fe is a real interesting place to go, but so are the Mayan temples in S America (Guatemala)."

Yeah, I just heard it had a decent arts scene and was "progressive". We would like to visit it an check it out. But certainly we aren't selling our house and moving to Santa Fe. It's nice to hear the other side of the story.

"Reagan stepped forward, the hostages being held in Iran were released within 30 minutes of his inauguration ... no one should ever forget that OR TAKE IT FOR GRANTED."

Good point. I don't disagree. I do think the use of force is a necessary threat. After all, in the end it is what backs every law whether domestic or international. That is one of my biggest problems with the UN. But after the debacle of Iraq, I am open to hear some other ideas.

"It should, because if BHO does not KNOW HIS OWN MIND anyone or any special interest group can hijack him and start making him do their bidding. And why would it be assumed that it would be someone you happen to think has good policies?"

Not sure what the question is. I don't assume that Obama has good policies. I want to hear him debate McCain. From the debates, which I will pay extremely close attention to, I will decide who to vote for. I am sure it isn't a popular stance here, but I have not ruled out voting for McCain. And the accusation of special interests owning a politician is one that can be leveled against any national contender.

As far as the plagiarism though, I still don't care. It is important to keep in mind that this is not even new for politicians. I mentioned the speech writers earlier, but The Week magazine, which I highly recommend, had a quick editorial that pointed out the following:

"'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' Stirring words from Abraham Lincoln in 1858--and also from the New Testament: 'If a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand' (Mark 3:25). When Franklin Roosevelt declared in 1933 that 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,' he neglected to mention Henry David Thoreau, who in 1852 observed that 'nothing is so much to be feared as fear.' And when John Kennedy urged Americans in 1961 to 'ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,' he may have been channeling Oliver Wendell Holmes, who in an 1884 Memorial Day address said it was time to recall "what our country had done for us, and to ask what we can do for our country.'"

None of it is original. And none of them should be expected to be original. At points I think we like to kill originality, in fact. And then praise it later.

Again, I just wanna hear them debate. All the better if there were three candidates in the national debates. In fact, I would love to see an election with instant run-off, so we could have a popular winner every time, but allow for more candidates as well.

I don't know what happened in Seattle, but I would say that, by the beast's own nature, there must be as many anarchisms as there are anarchists...

And again, I'd like to stress that what follows is a fantasy world that will never come to pass with humanity. Does not preclude us from living and behaving as if it could tough.

As I see it, anarchy is freedom from "superiors" telling you what to do -- and not "do whatever you want", which seems to be what most people think of when they hear the term. There's a big difference.

Humans are very social animals, therefore we must live among other humans -- no matter the American-beloved myth of the pioneer individual in the wilderness doing as he pleases. So some rules and cooperation are a necessary part of our existence.

In my view of an anarchist world, there is no government, that is what everyone knows. There is no money either, because it is not necessary. There are no countries, obviously -- countries are a violation of human freedom. It would be a very different world from ours, and materially too. Mainly materially, I'd say. Many things we have and do are only possible, it seems to me, with exploitation of other people, and that can not exist in an anarchist world. I might be exaggerating, and maybe all this would be possible anyway, but I find it difficult. It would be a world of much smaller societies, because coordination of free agents requires communication that is a challenge if the group is too big. We'll never know.

For an anarchist world to be possible, people would need to be impossibly better. Nearly perfect, maybe. Because people could not be lazy or greedy or dishonest or envious: one receives according to ones needs, and gives according with ones capabilities. The similarity of this sentence with communist ideas is no coincidence, since anarchism and communism/socialism evolved together in their beginnings, in the late 19th century Europe (anarchists broke away later on because communism and socialism as they were devised/ implemented require a dictatorship to achieve the end product; and we know how that one ended up). There would be cooperatives of work to do whatever is necessary, and depositories of goods for people to go and get what they needed (that's the "socialism" part of anarcho-socialism). Not being lazy, everyone would honestly work as well as they could. Not being greedy, nobody would take anything more than they really needed. People would decide of common accord what to do and how to do it; if you don't agree, just move on, nobody can force you to do anything, and you can't force anyone to do either. Being as rational as possible and having the best interest and freedom of everyone in mind, people should not have trouble cooperating and helping those in need. It might be your turn next to need it.

Still for the life of me I can't figure out how one can be for tariffs and laws against corporations and be an anarchist, which is defined (at least commonly defined) as the absence of government. Without a government who will impose the taxes to run your socialist system?

So, if you understood what I wrote above so far, you will see there can not be corporations in anarchy. Anarcho-capitalism (or what is called libertarianism in the US) is an oxymoron. Capitalism and the greatest freedom are incompatible by definition. Some dominate, exploit and control. Other are subjected, receive less than they give, and lose the control of their lives (don't get me wrong, capitalism can make many lives comfortable in exchange for freedom, but more on that in the next installment...) When one understands that, the objections you reasonably point above evaporate as many of our world's problems do when one notices there is (are) no god(s). Oh, and taxes aren't necessary either, if people and society are as I described earlier.

I warned you it was crazy stuff.

Well, long enough as it is, I will continue later. Got a grant proposal to polish, sigh...

I swear my computer is bent on disabling my posts. Once again I wrote and the damn thing froze.

Anyhow, the gist of my response was that in an ideal world anarchy would be ideal, but since we do not live in an ideal world I prefer realistic solutions.

Plus I was saying that you should feel free to post responses on my blog. I just wrote a post on the crisis in South America that you may strongly disagree with: http://www.disillusionedwords.com/?p=61

If it makes you feel any better, the Blogger software ate my post too (but it was only these few lines above). My computer did not freeze -- Linux almost never does, actually. Now, Firefox is a different story...

"Grand Old Punk Representative Steve King of Iowa said that the election of Obama to the Presidency would have terrorists dancing in the streets...middle name Hussein"

Guys (and girls) it's worse than it seems, when they really find out about Obama's past. Not only was his Muslim biologic father a rejector of Islam, i.e. an aethiest. but Barack (Jr.)'s mother was an anthropologist who saw organized religion "too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of rightteousness." This is from one of his books. His mother would expose him to various religious holidays to educate him, but "she provided me with no religious instruction." "But I was made to understand that such religious samplings required no sustained comitment on my part. REligion was an expression of human culture...that man attempted to control the unknowable and understand the deepr truths in our lives."

This means that Obama could legitimately be accused of worse than Islam. He was raised in an "ATHEISTIC HOME BY AN ANTHROPOLIGST."